NYT: Obama retreating on “red line” for Syrian chemical weapons

posted at 9:41 am on December 7, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In the summer of 2012, Barack Obama talked tough about “red lines” for Syria and the regime’s chemical weapons. In a rare press conference on August 20th, the President warned Bashar Assad that the US was prepared to act if Assad began to move his chemical weapons as a precursor to their use, emphasis mine:

I have, at this point, not ordered military engagement in the situation. But the point that you made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria; it concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

Almost four months later, the New York Times reports that the equation has changed, all right … but not in the direction Obama threatened. Instead, the “red line” has moved backwards, apparently to negate the threat of military action before the use of chemical weapons by Assad in the Syrian civil war:

When President Obama first warned Syria’s leader, President Bashar al-Assad, that even making moves toward using chemical weapons would cross a “red line” that might force the United States to drop its reluctance to intervene in the country’s civil war, Mr. Obama took an expansive view of where he drew that boundary.

“We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people,” he said at an Aug. 20 news conference. He added: “A red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus.”

But in the past week, amid intelligence reports that some precursor chemicals have been mixed for possible use as weapons, Mr. Obama’s “red line” appears to have shifted. His warning against “moving” weapons has disappeared from his public pronouncements, as well as those of Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The new warning is that if Mr. Assad makes use of those weapons, presumably against his own people or his neighbors, he will face unspecified consequences.

When the White House was asked about this significant change, they claimed that there was no change. They offered a Clintonian explanation instead:

The White House says the president has not changed his position at all — it is all in the definition of the word “moving.”

Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said Thursday that “ ‘moving around’ means proliferation,” as in allowing extremist groups like Hezbollah, which has training camps near the weapons sites, to obtain the material.

The NYT’s sources admit that Obama overshot the mark in August, though, and had to retreat on his “red line”:

But for Mr. Obama, the change in wording reflects the difficult politics and logistics of acting pre-emptively against Mr. Assad. No American president has talked more about the need to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, and to lock down existing stockpiles. And no president has insisted more publicly that this is a time for the United States to exit wars in the Middle East, not enter new ones.

“We’re kind of boxed in,” an administration official said this week as intelligence agencies in the United States and its allies were trying to figure out the worrisome activity at one or two of the three dozen sites where Syria’s chemical weapons are stockpiled. “There’s an issue of presidential credibility here,” the official said. “But our options are quite limited.”

The chief limitation, American and Israeli officials say, is that chemical weapons sites cannot be safely bombed. “That could create the exact situation we are trying to avoid,” said one senior American military official, who like several others interviewed would speak only on the condition of anonymity.

The Israelis disagree, and have their own contingencies for taking out the chemical weapons before Hezbollah gets their hands on them. “We’re willing to do it,” an Israeli official told the NYT, “probably more willing than the Americans.”

That’s the problem with setting “red lines” publicly. If you are not willing to take action, your credibility at that point is destroyed. That’s why it is important to understand the situation and your own capabilities before setting those red lines, especially in public speeches. Essentially, it makes Obama look as though he was bluffing, either deliberately or through ignorance, and neither makes the US look especially strong now.

Russia’s top diplomat held a hurried private discussion Thursday with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the U.N. envoy for Syria about the 20-month-old civil war in the country that is Russia’s closest Middle East ally.

The meeting is a sign that Russia may be reconsidering support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, purely as a practical response to his weakening military position. Until now, Russia has rejected U.S. and other calls to abandon Assad and has appeared to think that he can defeat the rebels and keep his government intact.

Russia has been the chief international defender of Assad’s regime, a military and trade partner, and the main obstacle to tougher U.N. action to pressure him to end the war and step aside. No decisions emerged from Thursday’s three-way discussion, but a State Department official said the talks had been constructive. Lakhdar Brahimi, the U.N.-Arab League envoy to Syria, said the group was seeking a “creative” solution to the Syria crisis.

The meeting came amid fresh concerns that a desperate Assad might resort to using chemical weapons against the rebels or civilians. Clinton would not directly address reports that Assad’s army has prepared deadly sarin gas for delivery by missile.

The best creative solution might be an extraction of Assad and his clique from Damascus as soon as possible, and an international force to remain in place to allow for a peaceful transition to democracy. A sudden departure followed by a power vacuum will produce a Hezbollah-run state, just as the same kind of power vacuum created the situations we currently face in Libya and Egypt.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

That’s only true for pure, silicate sands. Even Sahara Desert has few of those. Most natural sand deposits contain significant fraction of iron, intense brown-reddish color of which should overcome the green tint of chromium. However, I’m willing to conduct a test anywhere in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan; our European allies will certainly appreciate the scientific importance of such experiment.

Archivarix on December 7, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Ummm, no, pure silicate sands do not turn green they turn metallic grey/silver or clear. Those “TESTS” have been repeatedly conducted throughout the state of Nevada. However, in the purest interests of science of course, I would be more than willing to repeat them in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan for the purpose of determining if the trace mineral composition of the sands in Iran, Iraq, or Afghanistan would produce a different result.

1.) We know where those “WMD”s came from (Iraq thanks to Turkey),2.) Syria is none of our business,3.) Let our former ally, the Turks, deal with it,4.) The Israelis are ready, let ‘em have at it,5.)IF the World requests OUR help, let THEM pay for it,6.) If not, then STFU and GTFO, Pharaoh Barry.

Set a line, cave, the people will punish you at the voting booth (in theory, or course). This cause/effect actually hamstrings democracies at the negotiating table by severely limiting their ability to bluff.

It’s much easier for the Ahmadenijad’s, Saddam’s and Mao’s of the world to simply make declarative statements, safe in the knowledge that they will not be peacefully removed from power by the people.

By wanting to eliminate all entitlement programs and taxation, and in fact, desiring to see government completely eliminated?

Your ignorance is astounding.

Dante on December 7, 2012 at 11:27 AM

That is mighty trusting of human nature. A brand of human nature that hasn’t asserted itself over the past 5-10 thousand years we can reasonably research. So I would be careful about brandishing the term ignorant.

The Israelis disagree, and have their own contingencies for taking out the chemical weapons before Hezbollah gets their hands on them. “We’re willing to do it,” an Israeli official told the NYT, “probably more willing than the Americans.”

Michael Ledeen has sources that say hezblahblah already has control of Syrian chemical weapons. Both sides in the Libyan c-war are okay with that because it means the chemical weapons will only be used on The Juice.

The best creative solution might be an extraction of Assad and his clique from Damascus as soon as possible, and an international force to remain in place to allow for a peaceful transition to democracy.

That’s nonsense.

Isn’t it time we evaluate what’s going on in the middle east based on the facts on the ground rather than some fantastical storyline contrived at the outset of what amounted to an utterly failed attempt by a few to bring some level of democracy to traditionally Islamic states?

You’re going to have to give Dante a break. He has heard much of this magical spell called “The Logic” but hasn’t yet learned to cast it (it keeps backfiring on him and doing strange things it wasn’t supposed to). He still believes in magical Unicorns farts, faerie and pixie dust and his +100 staff of power.

When the Soviets placed offensive nuclear missiles in Cuba, with consent from both states, was the US right to demand their removal with threat of military force?

Washington Nearsider on December 7, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Hmm…I wonder what led them to do that? Bay of Pigs and Operation Mongoose sound familiar? Seems somewhat similar to Iran today; US provocation, including open warfare and open talks of military strikes, leads a country to seek means to defend itself from aggression.

Isn’t it time we evaluate what’s going on in the middle east based on the facts on the ground rather than some fantastical storyline contrived at the outset of what amounted to an utterly failed attempt by a few to bring some level of democracy to traditionally Islamic states?

The best creative solution might be an extraction of Assad and his clique from Damascus as soon as possible, and an international force to remain in place to allow for a peaceful transition to democracy.

Cause Assad is just a member of a tiny fringe group who have hijacked a noble Muslim country?

And Ed, you forgot the “transparent” part of the transition to democracy and also the rights for women and other minority critters. If you are promoting western fantasy get the lingo right.

The best least creative solution might be an extraction of Assad and his clique from Damascus as soon as possible, and an internationalAmerican force to remain in place to allow for a peacefuldeadly transition to democracyfull blown shariah.

Is that it? Reagan chumped the Russian Communists into destroying their economy over Star Wars and their Afghan Conflict and now we create our our debt suicide and capitulate to the Russians because what, we’re scared of them again.

HotAir.com posts NOTHING on Pearl Harbor Day to commemorate the horrific Japanese surprise attack on the American Naval Fleet in port at Pearl Harbor leaving 2,402 Americans killed and 1,282 Americans wounded — many of them civilians.

Pathetic.

This website has gone to crap ever since Michelle Malkin sold out to the highest bidder.

The Times’ story and presumably the administration’s (is there a difference?) seems to weasel away from military action because attacking the the transporters of the weapons might cause contamination of our ally, Jordan.

This is a cop out. The target should be Bassar Assad, not the Sarin filled trucks. It’s the guy who pulls the trigger we should be going after. Collateral damage to Jordan in that case might be an arm or a leg landing over the border.

HotAir.com posts NOTHING on Pearl Harbor Day to commemorate the horrific Japanese surprise attack on the American Naval Fleet in port at Pearl Harbor leaving 2,402 Americans killed and 1,282 Americans wounded — many of them civilians.

Pathetic.

This website has gone to crap ever since Michelle Malkin sold out to the highest bidder.

Your Blame America First mentality never fails to astound me. In bewtween 1931 to 1937 militarists took over the Japanese leadership. Starting with the Manchurian city of Mukden in 31, they proceded to seize most of their region. Their seven years of Empire building affecting free trade and safe passage throughout the Pacific, Far East, and Southeast Asia and demanded action. The US retaliated with economic measures and in return they tried to destroy our Pacific Fleet in a single attack.

Well, maybe you should have read the article to learn FDR’s motivations, then you wouldn’t ask such a silly question.

Your Blame America First mentality never fails to astound me. In bewtween 1931 to 1937 militarists took over the Japanese leadership. Starting with the Manchurian city of Mukden in 31, they proceded to seize most of their region. Their seven years of Empire building affecting free trade and safe passage throughout the Pacific, Far East, and Southeast Asia and demanded action. The US retaliated with economic measures and in return they tried to destroy our Pacific Fleet in a single attack.

Just freaking ban yourself.

hawkdriver on December 8, 2012 at 10:13 AM

Interesting. Very interesting. Here is an article that criticizes FDR and his progressive foreign policy, and you equate that criticism with “Blame America,” not blame FDR, but “Blame America”. Why is it you constantly defend progressivist policy, progressivist presidents, and always attack those who are pro-liberty and opposed to progressivism? You are nothing but a statist lapdog.

I answered your question and rather than answer him you babble on with more links. What about the emperial Japanese?

hawkdriver on December 8, 2012 at 11:24 PM

I didn’t ask a question. I posted a link, two links, in fact, to articles about FDR’s interventionism and war acts that were designed to provoke an attack. You came back with a question that was answered in the first article linked.

I thought you were Constitution Boy. They provide for the common defense.

What exactly would you prefer they do in that regard rather than what they do now?

hawkdriver on December 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

The Constitution doesn’t say the military provides for the common defense; it says “we the people” (well, the people who lived almost 250 years ago, that is) establish a federal government and the Constitution to do so. The people do through the seizure of their property. Regardless, the common defense does not include South Korea, Afghanistan, the Persian Gulf, Eastern Europe, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Germany, etc.

So try again: what do they do for me?

I answered this question.

Do you forget what you write?

What about Japan?

hawkdriver on December 9, 2012 at 12:02 AM

That wasn’t a question. Well, it was a reflexive question asked in surprise, such as when a person repeats the last few words another person has said. The point being that it was not a surprise attack.

Read the articles and quit repeating yourself. Then, after you have read the articles, if you feel the question was unanswered and still appropriate, ask it.

No American president has talked more about the need to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, and to lock down existing stockpiles. And no president has insisted more publicly that this is a time for the United States to exit wars in the Middle East, not enter new ones.

**Snort**Sneeze**Choke**

So, NYT, it is laudable to “prevent” while 45,000 die, but also “laudable” not to do anything!!!

The Chinese are learning that this infantile president only pulls triggers on pantywaist decisions, and waffles on the big ones. God help us the next 4 years.